The researchers found that the new mothers experienced gray matter reductions that lasted for at least two years after birth. This loss, however, is not necessarily a bad thing (according to Hoekzema, “the localization was quite remarkable”); it occurred in brain regions involved in social cognition, particularly in the network dedicated to theory of mind, which helps us think about what is going on in someone else’s mind—regions that had the strongest response when mothers looked at photos of their infants. These brain changes could also be used to predict how mothers scored on the attachment scale. In fact, researchers were able to use a computer algorithm to identify which women were new mothers based solely on their patterns of gray matter loss. Gray matter loss was not seen in new fathers or nonparents.
It is not entirely clear why women lose gray matter during pregnancy, but Hoekzema thinks it may be because their brains are becoming more specialized in ways that will help them adapt to motherhood and respond to the needs of their babies. The study offers some preliminary evidence to support this idea. Whereas the present study focuses primarily on documenting brain changes during pregnancy, she expects follow-up work to tackle more applied questions such as how brain changes relate to postpartum depression or attachment difficulties between mother and child.
...

So men have more greymatter, better spatial ability and also less empathy. Women lose grey matter when pregnant and supposedly become more empathatic and aware of human needs. But also, their spatial awareness is effected negatively.

Fri Jan 04 03:32:01
It reaffirms what we know already from our knowledge of puberty and sex change and fetal development, that bombarding the brain with hormones will have profound effects on the brain and our behavior. Of course this ”plasticity” dimishes with age an certain there is variability in how ”plastic” traits both physical and psychological are.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 03:39:34
The male analogue of taking testo is also well established. It would be interesting though perhaps hard to pass an ethics board to have a study and give men a pregnancy hormone treatment :)

It does however suggest that adult brain plasticity is much higher than previously recognized. This overlaps newer understanding of adult brain development.

We are in short what we do (primarily), but also to some extent what we think.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 07:04:09
Jergul
My thoughts
It is well established that hormones effect your entire fysiologi, including your brain and even your behavior. Every study doesn’t need to establish this, it is of course interesting and useful to establish the full pathway, but not really needed for a discussion like this. Data on other substances show similar results. You can take LSD and have profound life changing experiences, people who undergo dependecy therapy with psychedelics, the data there indicates that adult brain structure changes there as well. I think I have even mentioned it to you once. It is a safe assumption, but there will be variation in size of effect and if it is long term or even permanent.

Pregnancy is a natural process that has evolved over quite a long time. Most women go through it. To first call this process and change in brain structure ”plasticity” is a technically not wrong, does not really convey what is going on as it is too generic. To then assume that this applies in general to the entire brain or (the logical conclusion) can be preformed on others in other applications. Not so simple. Depressions after a pregnancy (likely as a result of the chemical storm) are not uncommon. This ”placticity” comes with a cost and as a result of alot of chemicals. My point is that women were designed by evolution to undergo this ”treatment” _mostly_ without problems. Changing your sex (for instance) was not in the evolutionary program. Getting higher IQ for example, it isn’t obvious that more brain power = more fitness in many scenarios, however increased empathy for offspring = better offspring survival rate.

I am not sure what you mean by last sentence. That the thoughts you have can change your brain structure? I would think so, but the way in which that (I think) happens is much slower and over many years, say 4 years at a university or 10 years working at one company married to the same person things that are repeated. The shower of hormones over 9 months is very rapid and intensive. Maybe it is possible to meditate changes to the brain over a short period, such studies are in their infancy still and I have not actually read anything. Though I have heard people explain that you can virtually have the same type of experience on MDMA just through meditation.

Plasticity implies reversibility. For example, the study claims only to be able to identify new mothers, not women who have previously had children some time in the past.

More brainpower always gives improved fitness but for the fact that brainpower is incredibly energy demanding. Suggesting there is an equilibrium that can be tweaked. Specifically, it may explain the first paragraph. Physical activity and higher energy use prompts the body into excess mode and it expands the brain. More brainmatter being a net benefit under the assumption of enough available energy to feed it.

Is your advise then that women wanting to focus on STEM topics should add pregnancy and nursing "fog" to the numerous reasons on why pregnacy should be avoided in the early to middle stages of a career?

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 10:55:04
”More brainpower”
Comes at a cost and trade off for the species and individually, certain cognitive disease seem to be more prevelant at the higher end. Even generically from what we understand of the ancestral environment, a 150 IQ does not translate into better fitness than 105. It translate into montary success in the modern world and corr. negatively with nr of offspring, so not even in the modern world does it make one ”fitter”. This is evident by the high variation and heritability in IQ scores along a normal distribution. Traits important for fitness would rapidly spread through gene flow, IQ despite being highly heritable has not.

I would not advise women to do that, since I suspect that their happiness is intrinsiclly connected to having babies, not all women of course, but 80-90% of them. I don’t think women need to emulate men or vice versa for the world to be a better place. I think most of these ideologically driven attempts to make things ”equal”, actually makes people more miserable. You can become convinced of things that do not bring you joy, because the prevailing culture insisted everyone break ”gender norms”. Follow your heart and dreams is my advice ;-) gay thing to say, sure, but also solid advice.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:12:24
Nimi
I mentioned the trade-off. Increased energy consumption. I would also argue that a society with a higher IQ will do better. For example do better at not starving. Which in turn has a negative impact on intelligence. A group with an average IQ of 110 is far fitter than a groups with an average IQ of 90. In evolutionary terms (evolution is a species level study and does not reduce well to individual levels).

If we were to accept your argument on female happiness. Net happiness would not change. It is simply deferred until a woman is in her mid to late fourties. Our species in characterised by our ability to defer gratification. Very few mammals are any good at it and we are excellent at delayed gratification.

Any other objections to women delaying impregnation until their careers are settled?

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:16:16
In a nutshell: Evolution at an individual level is the study of female fitness. Very few men's genetic heritage will pass down through an evolutionary meaningful number of generations (we are speaking of single digits from a multitude of billions. Women's genetic packaging is far, far mor enduring).

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 11:17:46
”Plasticity implies reversibility. For example, the study claims only to be able to identify new mothers, not women who have previously had children some time in the past.”

It would be interesting to see how and if it is reversed. Taking note from physical changes, say women who take testo, it would not be surprising if some changes were permanent. Additionally studies on cannabis for instance, the data shows changes reverts in one group and not in another. It may take longer for some (studies didn’t run more than 6 months) or simply be permanent, that is the theory.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:23:08
Speaking of energy. The reason babies are born prematurely (all human babies are) is because the hosts energy use maxes out at the end of pregnacy. Women simply cannot provide more energy to allow for further growth.

This dovetails nicely with other biological limitations (hipwidth to head size) and would certainly explain nursing "fog" and changes in grey matter. A woman is essentially semi-starving until breastfeeding ends. Energy out by definition greater than energy in due to biological limitations.

Do I need to point you in the direction of starvation's effects on brain structure?

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:24:33
Nimi
The study did not identify women who had given birth to women some time previously. It was only successful in identifying women who had just given birth.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 11:28:19
It is difficult to pinpont when IQ stops being evolutionary fit so I chose euro average and very high. I do agree that it is very much needed for civilization building, but not everyone just a tiny minority with relatively low fecundity. A tiny group who no doubt stand for a large portion of productive and creative output.

You are missing my point so let me be blunt. Since I am not a communist or a post modern ideolog I do not give out general advice to the entire female sex on how they should live their lives to get the optimal career path. Women live on average more balanced lives, I think that is very reasonable and worthy of emulation if you want to be happy. The only objection is towards thise that insist there is _a_ right way.

Fri Jan 04 11:32:42
And 100% accuracy telling who had never been pregnant.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 11:45:34
”Do I need to point you in the direction of starvation's effects on brain structure?”

Do I need to point to all the high fecundity idiots in the world? Starvation, vectors et al are not great circumstances, but you are also no better being a genius without the all the stuff contingent on modernity to use your intelligence to solve them. How smart do you need to be to track and hunt and plant seeds in the ground? Not very.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:46:09
Sammy
Only pregnant with anticipation on how you will step up and fill Hot Rod's shoes.

Nimi
You were suggesting women do whatever makes them happy, I am suggesting they might want to put some thought into building their careers before having children and reaching that state of happiness.

So if suggesting such things as you and I both did makes us communist, then whatsup Comrade Nimi?.

Two after birth is hardly surprising. The hypocamus popped right back incidentally.

A computer that can 100% accurately distinguish between never pregnant and someone that had just given birth is hardly surprising.

We should probably find the entire study. The readers digest variants are mind-numbing.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:51:54
Nimi
I dunno. Are you smart enough to track, hunt, and master basic planned harvesting year after year for 10 000 generations without being blugeoned to death for poor social graces? Without the crutch of literacy to pass on knowledge?

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 11:53:34
You forgot fish. I am hurt.

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 12:19:39
"We are in short what we do (primarily), but also to some extent what we think."

There is no action absent thought. Plasticity is simply the ability of habitat adaptability. Why we think differently seems obvious.

Garbage in doesn't always mean garbage out with the human brain. The human is driven environmentally altering brain structure and the variables/possibilities are endless in development from conception to death male or female.

To see is one thing and the response is potential. To seek is interest and desire. Individual nature is the composer and director that decides. Equal is a social myth.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 12:38:34
”You were suggesting women do whatever makes them happy, I am suggesting they might want to put some thought into building their careers before having children and reaching that state of happiness.”

I suggest they also put thought into having kids first and then study or make careers. There are lessons to be learned in having kids that are unique and transfer to the rest of life. They will also be young and more energetic to spend time and have fun with their kids. Life is more than sitting at a desk shuffeling papers. You know, only a minority of even men have a ”career”, the majority of people have fucking jobs. Is it odd they choose their kids young cuddly years? Men are the idiots really, pack on them some heavy bags and point them in a direction like a mule, he wont ask too many questions.

>>Are you smart enough to track, hunt, and master basic planned harvesting year after year for 10 000 generations without being blugeoned to death for poor social graces? Without the crutch of literacy to pass on knowledge?<<

Apart from farming, chimps seem to do this without much issues even wolves and they are dumber than chimls. So I am positive, most of it is knowledge for is humans, not brain power or muscle power, leverage in the shoulder, ability to pass knowledge which chimps and wolves all lack. It is an instinct that is honed with knowledge.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha

Fri Jan 04 12:46:27
Little kittens hunt instictively and in nature they learn by watching their mothers hunt. 100% you need no more than 80 IQ to be a good hunter.

I know some really _dumb_ people who have perfected growing large quantities of weed making alot of money, just looking at youtube videos. I mean flunked out of 9th grade stupid.

Mind you we are endurance hunter jergul, how much IQ do you need to jogg after something, until it dies? 63?

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 13:32:01
Nimi
For sure. I also think women should have children as soon as it compliments their careers and prosperity outlooks. Right now, for an educated professional, that would be when they are in their mid to late 40s.

I am using career in the CV building sense where each job is better paid and has more prestige than the job before it.

What happens to chimps with the upper body strength of the average human?

Human do some things instinctively, but nothing that would allow for long term survival.

To a point yes, then it becomes a very niche thing suitable for urban environments and merchantilism, civilization. We have hunter gatherers today jergul, fairly low average IQ. Climate has much more to explain than hunting. Our ability to build and adminitrate cities (systems), survive in areas with high seasonal variation (requires long term planning) and writting, reading, meeting likeminded, just the sheer concetration of people in a city allows for a greater flow of information. It is the environment that rewards and punishes.

Dukhat
Member

Fri Jan 04 14:11:30
Nim types so much yet says nothing. His entire post was posited on so many bad assumptions.

Talking with junkies is always similar. They lack the cognition to manage more than one variable.

No I am saying urban societies facilitate the type of environment needed for intelligent people to meet and create things that end up increasing the collective prosperity this is where high IQ people can be useful talking to other nerds inventing algebra, the numeric system and breast implants. All these things require a sucessions of traditions and institutions that can only emerge in cities. Seats of learning and urban industries, trade, areas that can actually use 150+ IQ brains and rewards scale well.

I just explained how retards grow weed by looking at youtube videos and make money. Clearly you don’t need high IQ to do fine. But it scales very well, if you have above average IQ and good with computers, you can output 100 times someone would with their hands. It creates quite a socioeconomic gap.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 15:16:40
Nimi
He (the chimp) was dinner.

Our cognitive capabilities did not evolve for us to live in urban environments. They evolved for us to succeed in pre-agricultural communities.

You know, in an environment that rewards and punishes in an evolutionary scale.

Right now, we do have a tendency to reach our intellectual capacity by avoiding starvation, parasites and disease, and dehabilitate our capacities through lifestyle choices.

The use for high intelligence far predates all developments that are functions of high intelligence.

There is nothing new about ritualizing (or if you prefer - codifying) information.

Fri Jan 04 16:03:16
TJ
Misrepresentation of the timescale. Evolution is measured on a timeline of 10s of thousands generations.

We have what? 300 generations since the agricultural revolution.

Will, thoughts, freedom. How best to maintain the three if a woman?

Remind me again of how many children Rand chose to have :).

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 16:17:14
The same amount as Hot Rod. If is foolish to make conclusions individually.

Example:
So-called sexual labels-heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual, transsexual being noted as political tools rather than actually being understood as a suffrage of tribal sexual sovereignty. A mental drive of acceptance.

Humanity is in the midst of a paradigm shift and I believe it is going to get ugly in the near future. We will remain primitive against time. If not, life will eventually lose value. The intellectual capacity of humanity as a whole will remain an unknown as long as it exists.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 16:28:19
TJ
I think it wise that female professionals should do what women have always aspired to do.

Have children and enjoy 40 years with them before dying of old age and passing on their inheritance to them.

Its the natural order of things :).

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 16:30:46
The natural order can't be stopped by humanity. :)

Individuals are going to do what they believe is best for them 99 % of the time.

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 16:32:34
Key word, believe.

jergul
large member

Fri Jan 04 16:49:42
They do indeed. College educated women are having their first child a full decade later than their mothers did.

Parsing that keyword:

If someone believes some action is best, they will do that action 99% of the time.

99% of all actions are done with a best belief, indeed any kind of forethought at all.

Hmmm, those numbers do not ring true to me.

People mostly just do shit.

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 17:01:33
"People mostly just do shit."

hahahah

Understandably

Culturally conditioned misrepresentations about the human experience. Seems to fit within in what I've said.

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 17:09:39
Also:

Women are choosing to abort more frequently, which alters the idea of hormone release highly considered an attachment process in the OP rather than the choice to prepare for childbirth.

Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum was born in 1905.
HR was born in 1938. It is known that Alissa had an affair with a married man known to be nearly 25 years younger. Infatuations

"People mostly just do shit!"

I blame Nimi for this post. He should remember why. Let it go where it may. lmao

Forwyn
Member

Fri Jan 04 20:08:05
"Women are choosing to abort more frequently, which alters the idea of hormone release highly considered an attachment process in the OP rather than the choice to prepare for childbirth."

Hormone levels are variable between individuals, and postpartum levels of oxytocin are greatly affected by physical contact with the child.

"The results are fascinating. Initial levels of oxytocin at the first trimester predicted bonding behavior. Therefore, mothers with a high level of the hormone at the beginning of the pregnancy engaged in more of the aforementioned bonding behaviors after birth.

Additionally, mothers who had higher levels of oxytocin across the pregnancy and the postpartum month also reported more behaviors that support the formation of an exclusive relationship (i.e. singing a special song to the infant, or bathing and feeding them in a special way). These mothers were also more preoccupied by thoughts of checking on the infant, the infant’s safety when they are not around, and the infant’s future."

TJ
Member

Fri Jan 04 21:01:40
Forwyn:

Sure, makes sense within generality. Unrecognized and indeterminate forces are working in the process. An over abundance or lack of optimal(whatever that would be)hormones, I suspect, has considerable influence in degrees. Not that hormonal involvement is nonexistent. Similar gray matter reductions take place in puberty. The same process is probably natural in other scenarios experienced. A hypothetical position, certainly...

jergul
large member

Sat Jan 05 06:35:44
Forwyn
Well, if drugs are the reward, then there are always perscriptions for that.

TJ
I was hoping you would find amusement :).

Delaying childbirth does have significant advantages. Particularly in terms of inter-generational wealth transfer, but also from an environmental impact perspective (the same number of humans born, but spread out over a longer timeline so that the impact at any given time is smaller).

It seems a natural adaptation to extended lifespans (In the developed world, all natural population growth since the babyboomers is due to longer life expectancy).

I am unsure of what metric to use. Perhaps ideally, inheritance should take place before the 3rd generation is too old to share a bedroom.

This moderated by how old the 2nd generation is when it births the first 3rd (about a decade before the expected life expectancy of the first generation ends).

TJ
Member

Sat Jan 05 14:39:26
jergul:

Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been busy and entered this place for a slow down.

What I'am about to share may sound foreign to more recent generations and possibly older.

Social reconstruction has never been an interest from my perspective. I'm not going to begin and complete a thesis on subjective betterment from a perfectionist vision. I view improvement as a personal responsibility.

It was difficult enough to navigate my personal life, which I believe is the responsibility of every individual. That shouldn't be understood as though I am absent of empathy, which is developed from experienced hardships. I've always faced them as a challenge that must be defeated.

I didn't have time, energy or interest in providing unsolicited advice that affects billions, millions, thousands, or even hundreds of individuals. I only applied that privilege within my immediate family.

I'm fairly certain that my perspective is different than imagined.

In doing so - demanded a long and difficult steadfast focus on my life goals from an early age. That mission was successful aside from one and that simply demands more time. I want to live long enough to enjoy all of my great grandchildren.

I knew that would have been an overly lofty goal to obtain if we had delayed having children more than we already had. As it was, We lost one child when I was 22. We had our second when i was 27 and third the following year. At 38 and 39 we had our next two children. Not the average path for certain.

World wars and babies are a survival legacy and it seems to be a natural order. Call it a phenomenon if you wish. It doesn't take intuition or reasoning for conclusion.

Wealth was never a personal goal, but comfort and security for my wife and children was, without question. If monetary wealth had been, retirement wouldn't have been possible at the age of 53 with two teenage children remaining in the home. The wife was a full time stay at home mom and today she enjoys full time freedom. It has provided me a feeling of peace and job well done contentment, especially when my adult children and grandchildren are confident enough to share their difficulties and ask for advice. Judging others is something I have always keep to myself.

Currently, I'm 70 so you have the ages of my children. Odds are that I'll only be 50% successful in obtaining that final goal, but hopefully positive in succeeding.

Many friends have asked the wife and I how we accomplished the independence we enjoy without inheritances and her being a full time mom. We just tell them - delayed gratification. That should sound familiar.

We took an alternate path of individual choice. The freedom of individuality and purpose...

If anyone asked me - "What would you change if you had to do it all over again?" My response would be simple - Damn straight I would. There is only one thing that troubled us for a considerable time that we'd preferred not happening, but avoidance wasn't possible.

Yeah, will, thoughts, and freedom have sharp edges. I was amused so thanks for the opportunity.

jergul
large member

Sat Jan 05 15:14:55
TJ
I am not so much interested in social engineering as I am thinking that things naturally trend towards what is rational.

If anything, I might be arguing that today's society is designed to see births occur as late as possible, but people are slow to get with the programme and accept truly draconian punishment (its no secret that the quickest way to poverty is to become a single income provider).

I was not offering a critique of the past. We did not know what we now know, and technology was not there either.

Thank you for sharing. My eldest slipped off the quay a few years back midwinter and was extremely lucky a stranger passed by to help pull her up (hypothermia disallowed climbing the safety ladder herself). I still sweat thinking how badly that could have gone. Incidentally, she is just shy 15 years older than the two that followed, so you are not alone with serial broods :).

Longlivity is driving change. We will see how it plays out.

McKobb
Member

Sat Jan 05 17:03:19
Glad your kinfolk are safe.

TJ
Member

Sat Jan 05 17:30:53
jergul:

Circumstances determines direction and the majority follows. Kicking and screaming is acceptable, but eventually succumbs to the inevitable consequences. Creativity will progress as long as it exists, but the root irrational will remain until the end. Nothing needs help.